June 9, 2022

Fireflies Unlimited

One can make a strong case that we are experiencing a dark era in American history. There are the seemingly nonstop mass-shootings. There is the organized republican effort to bring us back into the dark ages by overturning Roe. And this evening, we will see the January 6 Committee reporting on the insurrection.

We are all aware of this darkness. We know that many are actively engaged in efforts to prevent the light of truth from illuminating the nature of the darkness. The vast majority of republicans in DC want to avoid discussing the insurrection. Fox News will not be carrying the Committee's hearing tonight.

This is directly connected to the fact that when you or I venture out into public, perhaps visiting a grocery store, we know that a certain percentage of those we encounter exist in that darkness, both without and within. They are the dark holes that are playing a significant role in sucking the life-light out of democracy.

There are other types of darkness we must be aware of. These are the nay-sayers, the stick-in-the-mud mentalities that say the needed changes -- including necessary legal charges -- will never happen. They note things like the Committee and DOJ as identifying the Proud Boys as "key instigators" of the violence on January 6, and pretend this translates to the "only key instigators," as if we should forget everything we saw coming from the White House from the November election to Trump's speech to the crowd on January . And everything that we have learned since, including from the Committee and DOJ.

This doesn't mean we will not have moments of doubt. That includes doubt about if tonight's televised hearing will help. Doubt about if the DOJ will charge those in the Trump cult who were connected to the Proud Boys, even though there were connections, with Peter Navarro having spoken of the coordinated Green Bay Sweep and the republicans in the House and Senate supporting it. Doubts about if the Attorney General determines if there is enough evidence to prosecute Trump successfully, and doubts about if even that would result in Trump being indicted.

We must still do our part. When the DOJ shines a light by indicting Navarro, we know it is a good thing. When the Committee shines its bright light on the roots of the insurrection, it is a good thing. For that is their part. Our part is to respond. To light up the darkness like thousands of fireflies on a June night.

How do we do that? Clearly, it will be fun to participate in discussions here for the next 24 hours. There are good and intelligent people here who will give insights on the most significant parts of tonight's hearing. But, as citizens, we have the responsibility to do more. Amendment 1 includes the phrase "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Petitioning government can, obviously, include getting people to sign a letter, on paper or on the internet, and sending it to an individual or group in one of the three branches of government. But everyone knows these petitions carry the least weight or influence among the various ways of redressing grievances and concerns." A petition with a thousand signatures is far less powerful than a thousand phone calls, letters, or e-mails. Thus, it is better to concentrate on providing light by those individual contacts.

Recently, I posted contact information for the DOJ:

https://www.justice.gov/contact-us

https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice

I suggested that forum members contact the DOJ on Friday, to do one of two things: either to express confidence in what you assume is their current approach based upon what indictments have already been handed down, or to express your thoughts about the need to iindict those beyond the members of the crowd on January 6, including those in the White House.

As anticipated, some did not respond seriously, and one response expressed the person's strong disagreement with me. And that's fine. But others responded in a more positive light. And that's what we need. I'm reminded of a few years back, when my cousin and his son were shot in a road rage incident. The drunk, off-duty law enforcement officer killed the son, and seriously injured my cousin. There came a time in thr pre-trial period where DU community members contacted the District Attorney and the judge's offices, expressing their opinions on the case. It turned out to be by far the largest number of American citizens to make such contacts in the county's history. That is Amendment 1 in action.

Amendment 1 is not in action when people take the bump-on-a-log inaction. The "it won't matter" approach that only adds to the danger of the darkness. For only the mentally dead could watch tonight's hearing and fail to recognize that the Committee is shining a bright light upon a threat to our country that remains extremely dangerous. Don't go quietly into the dark night. Light it up.

June 8, 2022

Guns

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-- Amendment 1


A good friend stopped by to see me yesterday. Like every good and decent American, he is horrified by the mass-shootings that are taking place these days. As a gun owner, he is 100% in favor of outlawing military-grade assault guns for civilians. A person he is friends with had argued they must remain legal, pointing out that the military in Ukraine is using them to defend against the Russian invasion. My friend asked me how anyone could be so stupid?

In my opinion, the only way to have a semi-reasonable discussion with people that stupid -- and they are legion -- is to ask if they think Amendment 2 is intended to protect the "rights" of the human shit-stains that murdered so many innocent people in Buffalo and in the Texas school? Even stupid people seem to be able to grasp the implications, though they generally lack the intellectual ability to take it a step further.

It is more important, in my opinion, to be able to discuss gun control legislation with intelligent people who have concerns about restrictions on Amendment 2. This is not to say that all of their concerns are legitimate. For example, some are concerned by those who speak of getting rid of Amendment 2 and all guns. This is not a serious concern, of course, because there is at most zero chance of it happening. It is as meaningless as those who advocate for no restrictions.

In order to have serious discussions, it is important to study the history of Amendment 2, including the thinking of legal scholars as well as constitutional law (what the Supreme Court has ruled). This, of course, requires an open mind, and the willingness to listen to the opinions of those who disagree with you.

There is a book I recommend, titled, "The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding," edited by Eugene Hickok, Jr. Though published in 1991 by the University of Virginia Press, it is still of great value when considering addressing the sickening amount of mass-shootings happening daily in our country. It contains contributions from various points of view on each of the Bill of Rights.

Likewise, it is good to be able to speak about Supreme Court decisions on Amendment 1, I think, in order to show that there are restrictions on what it protects and what it does not protect. This allows one to go beyond the old "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" example. The one that I like to use involved Dr. King leading a march in Birmingham in 1963. A state court judge had ordered King and his followers not to march on a specific date, until the planned march was approved by the city.

King decided the march at that time was too important, and knowingly violated the state court's order. Eventually, the case reached the US Supreme Court, as Walker v City of Birmingham, and in 1967, the USSC ruled against King and his followers. Part of their decision stated that "respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law." And I think that line can be applied by those advocating for gun control legislation.

June 6, 2022

Airplane

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-committee-hearing-june-9-primetime/


I remember Rubin Carter telling me a story I'd like to share. A primitive tribe of people, fully isolated from the outside world, came upon an airplane in their territory. A tribal elder decided that the seats inside that plane made a mighty comfortable couch. For weeks upon weeks, he gleamed with pride as he sat on his new couch.

Another person found that by working some of the buttons, he could make the plane move forward upon the ground. He earned honor for discovering the tribe's first automobile. But the tribe never learned that this airplane could fly.

This is a lesson about both individuals and groups. For example, after watching the House Committee's first 2022 televised hearing on the January 6 insurrection, as individuals and as a group, DU members can thin, "I knew the criminals in and around the White House planned this." Or express disgust on an internet forum or telephone conversations. Or, as individuals and hopefully as a group, we can contact the Department of Justice to express our opinion(s).

Some might think the DOJ has a handle on this, and will take care of business after the mid-terms. Others might think the DOJ has to do more, right away. Both views are valid, when one considers the opinions expressed by intelligent, experienced former federal prosecutors on CNN and MSNBC. I respect people's right to either opinion. And this will give everyone the opportunity to express their thoughts -- either by e-mail or telephone -- by using the below links.

Doing so is superior to sitting on our couches. It's better than driving a point home among like-minded people. We need to be organized and start taking flight with the destination of the November elections now.

Thank you for your consideration.


https://www.justice.gov/contact-us

https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice

June 3, 2022

The Gums of Navarro

First, I think President Biden's speech to the nation was outstanding. I had come to think he would be a good president back in 1988, and have had a good opinion of him ever since. A Senator, Vice President, and now President. This is, in my opinion, the best speech of his career. I'm a proud supporter of Joe Biden.

I wish that issues with guns were not political. But republicans make them so. This leaves us no choice but to expose what damaged human beings republicans are. Along with women's health care and January 6 Committee hearings, we have what we need to defeat republicans come November.

The second issue is Peter Navarro. Last night, I participated on a couple OP/threads about Peter's interview on Ari Melber's show. Malaise posted "Navarro is on Ari right now," which led to an interesting discussion. On post #34, I noted that Ari knew Navarro was going to be indicted, which was why he conducted the interview in the manner that he did.

Keep in mind that Navarro has opted to represent himself in legal dealings with the House Committee. Bad choice. Even a moderately talented attorney would have advised him to stay away from the media -- especially Ari's show, where he had already laid out the Trump cult's plan to overthrow the 2020 election. And Ari played Navarro yet again: ask a few questions, and sit back while Peter runs his mouth.

It seemed obvious that Navarro -- who threatened "revenge" in 2024 -- was under extreme stress. He couldn't shut his mouth. As unattractive as it was, it was a good thing.